Biddho.com Eritrea - Rising To The Challenges! - FRAZER "MISREPRESENTING" THE ALGIERS AGREEMENT

Africa News

News

FRAZER "MISREPRESENTING" THE ALGIERS AGREEMENT

Written by Daniel Abraham

Friday, 07 December 2007

Little did we know about who her educator was going to be when Jendayi Frazer, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs said on 13 January 2006 that her trip [to the border] is really to "educate" herself. The trip itself should not have been necessary because legal information related to the Ethiopian Eritrean conflict and peace process is one of the well documented conflict information and easily available and accessible even to a layperson like myself. Frazer should therefore have made use of that to educate herself rather than let herself be "educated" by a party who is well known to have deceived the world and his own people regularly, even at times himself.

More importantly, the least the Assistant Secretary of State could have done before wasting her time travelling thousands of miles to a pre-arranged gimmick of visiting illegal settlements, artistically positioned on the geographical co-ordinates of the delimitation line under the cover of "talking to the local communities affected by the delimitation"; was to start her "education" through actual reading and understanding of the Algiers Agreement of which her government is a party to as a witness and guarantor. However her recent interview with VOA exposes her that with all her education and qualification, the Dr Frazer appeared to have preferred to be educated by Meles Zenawi, the evil fascist leader of Ethiopia, (a.k.a the chameleon for his special expertise in deception).

No sooner did Fraser come back from her trip to Ethiopia when she started speaking in "the chameleon's" tongue, making outrageous remarks that appear to be misquoting and misrepresenting the Algiers Agreement. On 1 February 2006, in an interview with the VOA Frazer said:

"In order to demarcate you have to have dialogue between the two parties ... basically the Algiers Agreement says demarcation has to be done according to what is just and reasonable - just and reasonable is that how does it affect the communities that live in the border for example if the delimitation line separates a person's house from his farm one have to adjust the line or compensate the farmer. That is the just and reasonable aspect that requires dialogue. . "

Strictly speaking there is no reference in the Algiers Agreement to demarcation being done "according to what is just and reasonable". Moreover the agreement does not state or imply the variation of the delimitation line based on the location of a person's house or farm nor does it refer to compensation of person(s) affected by the delimitation / demarcation of the border. Therefore it is rather a mystery to us Eritreans how and where U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs got that impression from.

If Frazer's reference to the deceptive term "according to what is just and reasonable" is indeed the same as the Latin term of "ex aequo et bono " where international arbitration judges or mediators are allowed to disregard the rule of law and make subjective, possibly politically motivated awards; contrary to what the good doctor unashamedly told the world, the Algiers Agreement is very clear. Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Algiers Agreement opts for strict application of colonial treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1908 and the applicable international law and specifically excludes the power of the Border Commission to rule on the basis of "ex aequo et bono". Most importantly, the decision has already been rendered and by paragraph 14 of Article 4 of the Algiers Agreement that decision is final and binding (unless of course Frazer wants to call the decision "illegal and unjust, null and void, etc" as once did Meles Zenawi and his government).

How could Frazer have missed this and made the incorrect televised statement? Is it because she took whatever Meles told her at face values? This remains to be unanswered. Fraser owes us Eritreans an explanation and apology before getting involved further with the peace process and every Eritrean ought to be pushing for these.

On the one hand, one can say she probably browsed through the Algiers Agreement and saw the Latin term of "ex aequo et bono" without noticing the phrase before it that says "The Commission shall not have the power to make decision" and ended up misquoting the Algiers Agreement. If that is the case, this confirms the general belief that when dealing with delicate matters in Africa such as the Eritrean and Ethiopian conflict, western politicians do allocate enough time for preparation unless it directly affects other western countries. In fact, they do not care if their incorrect, reckless, biased and outrageous statements cost the lives of millions in African, unless of course Frazer proves us wrong by sincerely making public apology.

On the other hand, the fact that she went out of her way to explain incorrectly the term "just and reasonable" and how she believed it should be applied by giving an example about the "separation of a person(s) house from his farm" and her entire trip to meet bogus "local communities", in manner more or less similar to what Meles has been deceitfully arguing for, makes us wonder whether she may have deliberately misrepresented the Algiers Agreement to bailout Meles. If so, that means she compromised her impartiality and there is a breach of trust and therefore she must cease immediately to get involved in the peace process as a mediator, facilitator or a party to mediators or facilitator or otherwise on any issues to do with bilateral or multilateral talks between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

To shed some light and demonstrate that those so called "local communities" visited by Frazer are bogus and illegal, the area currently occupied by Ethiopia and the surrounding were not habitable immediately after the war when the Algiers Agreement was signed in 2000 and were only barely habitable when International Boundary Commission ruling came out in April 2002 mainly because of contamination and insecurity. Therefore whoever the Madame met or talked to are no more than new settlers deliberately positioned around the geographical co-ordinates of the Delimitation Line of April 2002 in a futile attempt to create facts on the ground. The issue of the creation of new settlements by Ethiopia north of the delimitation line on sovereign Eritrean territories is very well documented and an order to dismantle these settlements and halt the creation of further new settlements was placed by Boundary Commission. The UN Security Council issued a resolution (Resolution 1430/2002) to that effect. Ethiopia is yet to comply with this order.

Therefore, instead of spoiling Meles, the already over spoiled brat of the west, even more by giving him the ammunition and excuse to misinterpret and misrepresent the Algiers Agreement, Frazer should have given him a clear message that he only needs to abide by the Algiers Agreement (in particular paragraph 14 and 15 which spell out the duties of the parties to cooperate with the Commission, its experts and other staff in all respects during the process of delimitation and demarcation and to accept the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission as final and binding and respect the border so determined, as well as territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other party ) to move the peace process forward.

Finally but most importantly there is the issue of who has the mandate for delimitation and demarcation. Frazer can travel thousands of miles and speak to Meles, the chameleon, and the bogus "local communities", yet she has no mandate to alter the Algiers Agreement of 2000 or assume the role of Boundary Commission. Demarcation remains under the sole mandate of the Boundary Commission and the Boundary Commission mandate is defined by the paragraph 2 of Article 4 Algiers Agreement.

Since its ruling of April 2002, the Boundary Commission published several reports that Frazer would have found them useful and educational. One of these reports is the Sixteenth report dated 24 February 2005, in which the Commission hammered the final nail on the coffin of the chameleon when the Commission reiterated that the boundary line determined by its Delimitation Decision of 13 April 2002 is legally and finally binding. Moreover the commission asserted that conduct inconsistent with this boundary line is unlawful. So the issue is not just about border demarcation but occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory. In fact that makes the trip of Frazer to sovereign Eritrean territory without the clearance of the Eritrean Government unlawful.

Frazer's mission started from what appears to be now just a rhetoric by John Bolton (the US Ambassador to the UN) which nearly convinced some of us that the US policy towards Eritreans is about to change when he said in a press conference on 14 December 2005:

"You cannot be diverted from the fundamental point which is that the Council has been frustrated for three years by the government of Ethiopia's refusal to adhere to the decision - the binding, arbitral decision of the boundary commission. . what the Council should do is pivot to the larger issue of resolving the gridlock that has occurred for the last three years because of the unwillingness of Ethiopia to accept the boundary commission's decision".

A much softer "rhetoric" was presented on 9 January 2006 when Ambassador Bolton said:

"I think what we want to do is move towards demarcation of the boundary. As I said before, and as we said in other public statements, the issue there is one goes to the question of the parties fundamental agreement with the Algeries Accord of 2000. If they both still serious about that and both committed to what they agreed to in 2000 then we should go forward with demarcation and that is what we are going to do. This is assessments of how we got to this point I think we are probably going to live to history, what we want to see is demarcation accomplished and the dispute resolved. "

But this was short lived when another member of the US Government, Jendayi Frazer, made entirely a "u-turn" from that "policy" and in what appears to be an attempt to amend the Algiers Agreement as we have seen above.

What is the US policy in the Ethio Eritrean Peace process? In fact it makes one wonder if the US government has a policy at all when each and every US politicians are seen to deviate at will from that "policy". Could we say Bolton's speech is just rhetoric than policy, perhaps an attempt to trick us into opening a door for renegotiating the terms of the Algiers Agreement? On the other hand could Bolton intention be indeed honest but perhaps sabotaged by some Ethiopiles in the State Department?

The US should know that our memory is still fresh and still being haunted by what happed to us since another US Ambassador to the UN, John Foster Dulles, in the 1950s, publicly revealed to the National Assembly of the UN that Eritrean people and 'the view of justices ' are irrelevant when it comes to his country's 'perceived or imagined ' national interest and condemned us for 4 decades of occupation and oppression under successive murderous Ethiopian regimes and their western friends that lead to the slaughter of more that to 300,000 civilian Eritreans out of the 3,000,000 Eritrean population in an African holocaust. Is history is about to repeat itself? Lord have mercy! We hope not, otherwise how would Bolton defer from Dulles. At least Dulles was pretty honest as to what he was about to do?

To prevent history repeating itself, we shall continue to remind the "international community" (but in particular the USA, because it is an open secret that the US can get Meles to respect the Algiers Agreement and tell him to get on with the demarcation at a twitch of a finger) as signatories and guarantors of the Algiers Agreement, they are under morale as well as legal obligation to work towards bringing about the full implementation of the final and binding delimitation and demarcation verdict of the Boundary Commission and further call upon them not to betray us time and time again by being an instrument of injustice or a party to the conceived miscarriage of justice but come out publicly against any attempt to bend the rule of law by telling the Ethiopian Government in clear and unambiguous manner:

To fully and unconditionally respect of the Algiers Agreement;
To unconditionally accept and comply with the 13 April 2002 final and binding Boundary Commission decision;
To immediately withdraw its forces from sovereign Eritrean territories so that the 60,000 Eritreans who remain dislocated from their home villages and towns could return to their homes and have their normal lives;
To fully and unconditionally cooperate with the Boundary Commission to ensure expeditious demarcation of the Boundary.

We shall continue to sing in unison from every mountains and valleys - the verse still remains "the final and binding the Boundary Commission border ruling must be implemented" and the chorus is "Ethiopia must be told to unconditionally accept and abide by the ruling in a clear and unambiguous manner."

Daniel Abraham

10 February 2006

Comments

Add New

RSS

Awet	\| 85.227.186.xxx \| 2007-12-07 19:23:04

I hate this fat agly lady janda ferzzzzzzaee her mind is too small and narrow, she think that she can re oppen
the Boundry commission border rulling,What a losser

Only registered users can write comments!